{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__operations_research","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"aa2f2bad98e8acca1e79ab61488cae10dee8fc0cec883218e1f6147fe577f118","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate defines an independently observable accumulation problem involving stale optimization-run artifacts, ambiguous authority, storage burden, and reconstruction risk rather than merely restating the intervention."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Sequential run deposits, declining active usefulness, stale authority, dependency-sensitive retirement, differentiated disposition, and bounded retention correspond directly to the archetype structure."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed registry, supersession controls, retention rules, dependency gates, tiering, quarantine, and revalidation plausibly act on the stated causes of stale discoverability and cleanup paralysis."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Every archetype component receives a coherent domain realization, and mechanism selections, adaptations, rejections, and counterfactual-removal statements preserve distinct roles without treating age or a composite score as deletion authority."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical prevalence, effectiveness, and novelty are explicitly bounded as hypotheses or unsearched claims; structural inferences are labeled, and no unsupported external evidence is presented as established fact."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Separate problem and intervention falsifiers use observable inventory, discovery, storage, dependency, restoration, and reviewer-agreement outcomes, while the analogy-break and failure conditions identify genuine limits."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Joint approval authority, hold protection, a bounded shadow pilot, reversible quarantine, explicit exclusions, restoration checks, and concrete halt-and-rollback conditions adequately constrain the initial action."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The temporal stack, lifecycle-state problem, exception structure, dependency risk, reversible disposition, and bounded-memory objective are all preserved."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":3,"reason":"The substrate is credibly grounded in recurring optimization models, scenarios, solutions, lineage, and reproducibility, though much of the intervention is also recognizable as general records and platform governance."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":4,"reason":"The chain connects visibility and supersession evidence to authorized transitions, reduced active discoverability, cheaper retention, recoverability, and recurring correction of holds and classifications."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"The component map is complete and translates abstract lifecycle functions into inspectable optimization-artifact states, controls, and procedures."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly addresses old artifacts that regain value, incomplete lineage, hold conflicts, restoration failure, false staleness, permanent exceptions, and metadata-cost reversal."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively reframes artifact sprawl as a governed lifecycle and authority problem, although the resulting practices remain close to established data-retention and model-governance patterns."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"The bounded pilot defines scope, review, reversible treatment, restoration, halt conditions, and observable intervention outcomes suitable for operational testing."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":4,"reason":"The reversible first step can reveal classification and dependency quality while tightly limiting irreversible harm and preserving rollback."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":0,"reason":"Prior-art status is explicitly unsearched, so no novelty evidence is available closed-book."}},"weighted_total":88.75,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"The claimed contribution is not distinguished from existing model registries, experiment tracking, records schedules, or artifact-store lifecycle controls.","repair":"Conduct a scoped prior-art comparison and state whether the contribution is a new mechanism, a new integration of known controls, or an application-specific governance design.","evidence_boundary":"Novelty cannot be established from the supplied closed-book packet."},{"priority":"LOW","issue":"The pilot names relevant outcomes but does not operationally define ordinary discovery exposure, projected active-tier reduction, acceptable reviewer disagreement, or adequate dependency coverage.","repair":"Pre-register measurement definitions and decision thresholds before running the pilot.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values require local baseline and risk-tolerance evidence rather than inference from the archetype."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is an original attempt with no prior problem or causal-lever identifier; neither identifier changed, and no earlier repair is claimed as addressed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, causally coherent, evidence-bounded, falsifiable, and safely testable. Its main unresolved weakness is the absence of prior-art evidence, with a secondary need to pre-register operational pilot thresholds."}